Hi,
like most OpenStack projects we need to keep the core team up to
date: folk who are not regularly reviewing will lose context over
time, and new folk who have been reviewing regularly should be trusted
with -core responsibilities.
In this months review:
- Ghe Rivero for -core
- Jan Provaznik for removal from -core
- Jordan O'Mara for removal from -core
- Martyn Taylor for removal from -core
- Jiri Tomasek for removal from -core
- Jamomir Coufal for removal from -core
Existing -core members are eligible to vote - please indicate your
opinion on each of the three changes above in reply to this email.
Ghe, please let me know if you're willing to be in tripleo-core. Jan,
Jordan, Martyn, Jiri & Jaromir, if you are planning on becoming
substantially more active in TripleO reviews in the short term, please
let us know.
My approach to this caused some confusion a while back, so I'm going
to throw in some boilerplate here for a few more editions... - I'm
going to talk about stats here, but they
are only part of the picture : folk that aren't really being /felt/ as
effective reviewers won't be asked to take on -core responsibility,
and folk who are less active than needed but still very connected to
the project may still keep them : it's not pure numbers.
Also, it's a vote: that is direct representation by the existing -core
reviewers as to whether they are ready to accept a new reviewer as
core or not. This mail from me merely kicks off the proposal for any
changes.
But, the metrics provide an easy fingerprint - they are a useful tool
to avoid bias (e.g. remembering folk who are just short-term active) -
human memory can be particularly treacherous - see 'Thinking, Fast and
Slow'.
With that prelude out of the way:
Please see Russell's excellent stats:
http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/tripleo-reviewers-30.txt
http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/tripleo-reviewers-90.txt
For joining and retaining core I look at the 90 day statistics; folk
who are particularly low in the 30 day stats get a heads up so they
aren't caught by surprise.
Our merger with Tuskar has now had plenty of time to bed down; folk
from the Tuskar project who have been reviewing widely within TripleO
for the last three months are not in any way disadvantaged vs previous
core reviewers when merely looking at the stats; and they've had three
months to get familiar with the broad set of codebases we maintain.
90 day active-enough stats:
+------------------+---------------------------------------+----------------+
| Reviewer | Reviews -2 -1 +1 +2 +A +/- % | Disagreements* |
+------------------+---------------------------------------+----------------+
| lifeless ** | 521 16 181 6 318 141 62.2% | 16 ( 3.1%) |
| cmsj ** | 416 1 30 1 384 206 92.5% | 22 ( 5.3%) |
| clint-fewbar ** | 379 2 83 0 294 120 77.6% | 11 ( 2.9%) |
| derekh ** | 196 0 36 2 158 78 81.6% | 6 ( 3.1%) |
| slagle ** | 165 0 36 94 35 14 78.2% | 15 ( 9.1%) |
| ghe.rivero | 150 0 26 124 0 0 82.7% | 17 ( 11.3%) |
| rpodolyaka | 142 0 34 108 0 0 76.1% | 21 ( 14.8%) |
| lsmola ** | 101 1 15 27 58 38 84.2% | 4 ( 4.0%) |
| ifarkas ** | 95 0 10 8 77 25 89.5% | 4 ( 4.2%) |
| jistr ** | 95 1 19 16 59 23 78.9% | 5 ( 5.3%) |
| markmc | 94 0 35 59 0 0 62.8% | 4 ( 4.3%) |
| pblaho ** | 83 1 13 45 24 9 83.1% | 19 ( 22.9%) |
| marios ** | 72 0 7 32 33 15 90.3% | 6 ( 8.3%) |
| tzumainn ** | 67 0 17 15 35 15 74.6% | 3 ( 4.5%) |
| dan-prince | 59 0 10 35 14 10 83.1% | 7 ( 11.9%) |
| jogo | 57 0 6 51 0 0 89.5% | 2 ( 3.5%) |
This is a massive improvement over last months report. \o/ Yay. The
cutoff line here is pretty arbitrary - I extended a couple of rows
below one-per-work-day because Dan and Joe were basically there - and
there is a somewhat bigger gap to the next most active reviewer below
that.
About half of Ghe's reviews are in the last 30 days, and ~85% in the
last 60 - but he has been doing significant numbers of thoughtful
reviews over the whole three months - I'd like to propose him for
-core.
Roman has very similar numbers here, but I don't feel quite as
confident yet - I think he is still coming up to speed on the codebase
(nearly all his reviews are in the last 60 days only) - but I'm
confident that he'll be thoroughly indoctrinated in another month :).
Mark is contributing great throughtful reviews, but the vast majority
are very recent - like Roman, I want to give him some more time
getting settled in with TripleO before proposing him for core.
Dan has a lower number of reviews but has been tracking fairly
consistently over the last three + months, which is great. My personal
feeling is that I don't think he's got quite enough alignment with
everyone else [yet] - but perhaps that doesn't matter? I'm inclined to
revisit next month as well.
Joe is also in the 'great start, the contribution is welcome' - but
needs more time settling into the things we need to care for in the
TripleO codebases - keep it up.
And the 90 day not-active-enough status:
| jprovazn ** | 22 0 5 10 7 1 77.3% | 2 ( 9.1%) |
| jomara ** | 21 0 2 4 15 11 90.5% | 2 ( 9.5%) |
| mtaylor ** | 17 3 6 0 8 8 47.1% | 0 ( 0.0%) |
| jtomasek ** | 10 0 0 2 8 10 100.0% | 1 ( 10.0%) |
| jcoufal ** | 5 3 1 0 1 3 20.0% | 0 ( 0.0%) |
Jan, Jordan, Martyn, Jiri and Jaromir are still actively contributing
to TripleO and OpenStack, but I don't think they are tracking /
engaging in the code review discussions enough to stay in -core: I'd
be delighted if they want to rejoin as core - as we discussed last
time, after a shorter than usual ramp up period if they get stuck in.
Now, 30 day history - this is the heads up for folk to avoid surprises
in January
Folk that are on track to retain/ be asked to be -core:
| lifeless ** | 184 4 68 0 112 42 60.9% | 6 ( 3.3%) |
| ghe.rivero | 85 0 17 68 0 0 80.0% | 8 ( 9.4%) |
| rpodolyaka | 79 0 15 64 0 0 81.0% | 17 ( 21.5%) |
| markmc | 70 0 33 37 0 0 52.9% | 3 ( 4.3%) |
| derekh ** | 60 0 14 0 46 19 76.7% | 4 ( 6.7%) |
| slagle ** | 59 0 14 10 35 14 76.3% | 3 ( 5.1%) |
| marios ** | 54 0 6 20 28 13 88.9% | 5 ( 9.3%) |
| pblaho ** | 53 1 8 39 5 3 83.0% | 15 ( 28.3%) |
| cmsj ** | 49 0 5 1 43 22 89.8% | 6 ( 12.2%) |
| jistr ** | 46 1 5 9 31 10 87.0% | 3 ( 6.5%) |
| ifarkas ** | 44 0 3 0 41 16 93.2% | 1 ( 2.3%) |
| lsmola ** | 36 0 1 8 27 25 97.2% | 0 ( 0.0%) |
-core that are not keeping up recently...:
| clint-fewbar ** | 24 0 9 0 15 9 62.5% | 0 ( 0.0%) |
| tomas-8c8 ** | 22 0 0 1 21 15 100.0% | 1 ( 4.5%) |
| tzumainn ** | 14 0 0 12 2 1 100.0% | 2 ( 14.3%) |
| jprovazn ** | 12 0 4 3 5 1 66.7% | 0 ( 0.0%) |
| jomara ** | 9 0 2 3 4 1 77.8% | 1 ( 11.1%) |
| jtomasek ** | 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.0% | 0 ( 0.0%) |
Please remember - the stats are just an entry point to a more detailed
discussion about each individual, and I know we all have a bunch of
work stuff, particularly in the lead up to the summit!
I'm using the fairly simple metric of 'average at least one review a
day' as a proxy for 'sees enough of the code and enough discussion of
the code to be an effective reviewer'. The one review a day thing I
derive thusly:
- reading a single patch a day is a low commitment to ask for
- if you don't have time to do that, you will get stale quickly -
you'll only see
about 20% of the code changes going on (we're doing about 5 commits
a day and hopefully not slowing down!)
Cheers,
Rob
--
Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hp.com>
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
